The state Superior Court has ruled that state law does not allow for UIM recovery to offset an award against a third-party tortfeasor.
In so holding, the en banc panel abrogated the credit it had previously carved out in Pusl v. Means, overruling its decision in that case. The panel’s decision, in essence, was that the Pusl court had wrongly equated UIM recovery with first-party benefits when the specific offset provision in the Motor Vehicle and Financial Responsibility Law does not make any mention of UIM benefits. That came even though the law makes "casual reference" to UIM benefits as first-party benefits in other subchapters.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
